justices of peace at a quarterly meeting; who, on receiving fatiffaction, muft order the fum arifing from the public tax to be difstributed among the poor contained in the roll, according to the estimate of the landholders. As the public fund lies dead till the fubfcription is completed, it is not to be imagined, that any gentleman will stand out: it would be a public imputation on his character. Far from apprehending any deficiency, confident I am, that every gentleman would confider it as honourable to contribute largely. This agreeable work must be blended with what is rather disagreeable, that of excluding from the roll every profligate, male or female. If that rule be followed out with a proper degree of feverity, the innocent poor will diminish daily; fo as in time to be fafely left upon voluntary charity, without neceffity of any tax.

But must miserable wretches, reduced to poverty by idleness or intemperance, be, in a Christian country, abandoned to diseases and famine? It is this very argument, fallow as it is, that has corrupted the industry of England, and reduced multitudes to diseases and famine. Those who are able to work, may be locked up in a house of correction, to be fed with bread and water; but with liberty of working for themselves. And as for the remainder, their cafe is not defperate, when they have access to fuch tender-hearted perfons as are more eminent for pity than for principle. If by neglect or overfight any happen to die of want, the example will tend more to reformation, than the most pathetic difcourfe from the pulpit.

Even at the hazard of losing a few lives by neglect or oversight, common begging ought abfolutely to be prohibited. The most profligate, are the most impudent, and the most expert at feigning diftrefs. If begging be indulged to any, all will rush into the public idlers are fond of that wandering and indolent fort of life; and there is no temptation to idlenefs more fuccefsful, than liberty VOL. II.

H

to

to beg. In order to be relieved from common beggars, it has been propofed, to fine those who give them alms. Little penetration must they have, to whom the infufficiency of fuch a remedy is not palpable. It is easy to give alms without being feen; and compaffion will extort alms, even at the hazard of fuffering for it; not to mention, that every one in fuch a cafe will avoid the odious character of an informer. The following remedy is fuggefted, as what probably may answer better. An officer must be appointed in every parish, with a competent falary, for apprehending and carrying to the workhoufe every ftrolling beggar; under the penalty of lofing his office, with what falary is due to him, if any beggar be found strolling four and twenty hours after the fact comes to his knowledge. In the workhoufe fuch beggars shall be fed with bread and water for a year, but with liberty of working for themselves.

I declare refolutely against a perpetual tax for the poor. But if there must be fuch a tax, I know of none lefs fubverfive of industry and morals, than that established in Scotland, obliging the landholders in every parifh to meet at ftated times, in order to provide a fund for the poor; but leaving the objects of their charity, and the measure, to their own humanity and discretion. In this plan, there is no encroachment on the natural duty of charity, but only that the minority must submit to the opinion of the majority.

In large towns, where the character and circumftances of the poor are not fo well known as in country-parishes, the following variation is propofed. Inftead of landholders, who are proper in country-parishes, let there be in each town-parish a standing committee, to be chosen by the proprietors of houfes, the third be changed annually. This committee, with the minister, make up a lift of fuch as deferve charity, adding an estimate of what, with their own labour, may be fufficient for each of them. The mi

part to

nister,

per

nister, with one or two of the committee, carry about this lift to every family that can afford charity, fuggesting what may be profor each to contribute. This lift, with an addition of the fum contributed or promised by each householder, must be affixed on the principal door of the parish-church, to honour the contributors, and to inform the poor of the provifion made for them. Some fuch mode may probably be effectual, without tranfgreffing the bounds of voluntary charity. But if any one obftinately refufe to contribute after several applications, the committee at their difcretion may tax him. If it be the poffeffor who declines contributing, the tax must be laid upon him, referving relief against his landlord.

In great towns, the poor, who ought to be prohibited from begging, are less known than in country-parishes. And among a croud of inhabitants, it is easier for an individual to efcape the eye of the public, when he with-holds charity, than in countryparishes. Both defects will be remedied by the plan above propofed it will bring to light, in great cities, the poor who deserve charity; and it will bring to light every person who withholds charity.

SKETCH XI.

A GREAT CITY confidered in Phyfical, Moral, and Political Views.

IN

N all ages an opinion feems to have been prevalent, that a great city is a great evil, and that a capital may be too great for the state, as a head may be for the body. Confidering however the very fhallow reasons that have been given for this opinion, it should seem to be but slightly founded. There are feveral ordinances limiting the extent of Paris, and prohibiting new buildings beyond the prescribed bounds; the first of which is by Henry II. ann. 1549. Thefe ordinances have been renewed from time to time, down to the 1672, in which year there is an edict of Louis XIV. to the fame purpose. The reafons affigned are, " First, "That by enlarging the city, the air would be rendered unwhole"fome. Second, That cleaning the streets would prove a great ad"ditional labour. Third, That adding to the number of inhabi

tants would raise the price of provifions, of labour, and of ma"nufactures. Fourth, That ground would be covered with

buildings instead of corn, which might hazard a scarcity. "Fifth, That the country would be depopulated by the defire "that people have to refort to the capital. And, laftly, That the difficulty of governing fuch numbers would be an encouragement to robbery and murder."

These reasons for confining the city of Paris within certain bounds are wonderfully fhallow. The most important of them

conclude

conclude justly against permitting an increase of inhabitants: the fecond and fourth conclude only against enlarging the city; and these, at the best, are trifling. The first reason urged against enlarging the city, is a folid reason for enlarging it, supposing the numbers to be limited; for to prevent crouding is an excellent preventive of unwholesome air. Paris, with the fame number of inhabitants that were in the days of the fourth Henry, occupies thrice the space, much to the health as well as comfort of the inhabitants. Had the ordinances mentioned been made effectual, the houses in Paris must all have been built, like those in the old town, story above ftory, afcending to the fky like the tower of Babel. Before the great fire anno 1666, the plague was frequent in London; but by widening the streets, and enlarging the houfes, there has not fince been known in that great city, any contagious distemper that deserves the name of a plague. The third, fifth, and last reasons, conclude against permitting any addition to the number of inhabitants; but conclude nothing against enlarging the town. In a word, the measure adopted in these ordinances has little or no tendency to correct the evils complained of; and infallibly would enflame the chief of them. The meafure that ought to have been adopted, is to limit the number of inhabitants, not the extent of the town.

Queen Elifabeth of England, copying the French ordinances, iffued a proclamation anno 1602, prohibiting any new buiklings within three miles of London. The preamble is in the following words: "That foreseeing the great and manifold inconveniencies "and mischiefs which daily grow, and are likely to increase, in "the city and fuburbs of London, by confluence of people to in"habit the fame; not only by reafon that fuch multitudes can "hardly be governed to ferve God, and obey her Majefty, without constituting an addition of new officers, and enlarging their “authority; but also can hardly be provided of food and other "neceffaries